LO
I thought most of them were freelance now. Surely Jane & Chris are?
There's freelance and freelance. There's having a regular contract (without being salaried staff), and there's casual work.
Moz posted:
mromega posted:
Do people really think that non-freelance news presenters are paid based on the number of hours they work?
I thought most of them were freelance now. Surely Jane & Chris are?
There's freelance and freelance. There's having a regular contract (without being salaried staff), and there's casual work.
JA
How would this save money? Both studios will be staffed, and apart from a few minutes of OB links there is no other obvious saving.
It will save money - and that's quite obviously the ONLY reason they're doing it - as Jane & Chris will only work until 10. They only have to pay for 1 presenter for an hour (and half of that hour he's just covering in case) rather than two presenters. That will amount up to quite a bit per year. There would be other savings as well.
Surely either Jane and Chris will be doing 10.30-11pm or Peter Dobbie will start earlier though? So they wont save any money...
Moz posted:
marksi posted:
Joanna Gosling Fan posted:
Why don't they just admit what is blindingly obvious: that this is nothing but a money-saving exercise? There is no advantage at all in simulcasting the Ten O'Clock News; they should just admit that what they're doing, rather than pretending it's an improvement.
How would this save money? Both studios will be staffed, and apart from a few minutes of OB links there is no other obvious saving.
It will save money - and that's quite obviously the ONLY reason they're doing it - as Jane & Chris will only work until 10. They only have to pay for 1 presenter for an hour (and half of that hour he's just covering in case) rather than two presenters. That will amount up to quite a bit per year. There would be other savings as well.
Surely either Jane and Chris will be doing 10.30-11pm or Peter Dobbie will start earlier though? So they wont save any money...
SP
I would gues that there would have to be some tweaks to news24 titles/countdown, it would be nice if the bbc1 took the countdown and the 10 titles had the dynamic headline over the golbe in some way. I would expect Huw to do the full hour.
It would be good now if the countdown vids (which are excellent) were added too.
Alos on a side issue, how will the channel rebrand of the chanels in may affect n24
It would be good now if the countdown vids (which are excellent) were added too.
Alos on a side issue, how will the channel rebrand of the chanels in may affect n24
BR
About time - during all the BBC bulletins News 24 is showing virtually the same reports in a different package!
And the argument about Breaking News is a non-starter - if it's that important it'll be covered on the BBC1 bulletin. If not (as most Breaking News is!), it can wait till the end of the bulletin!
No reason why the 1pm and 6pm programmes couldn't be simulcast too!
Another point - I wonder if BBC1 will adopt News 24 style astons from Monday then, considering I assume the 10pm News will be shown on BBC News 24 complete with the full tower.
Moz posted:
I'd be more in favour of that than News 24 showing 'national' news, but the question is how would they manage during breaking news....?
About time - during all the BBC bulletins News 24 is showing virtually the same reports in a different package!
And the argument about Breaking News is a non-starter - if it's that important it'll be covered on the BBC1 bulletin. If not (as most Breaking News is!), it can wait till the end of the bulletin!
No reason why the 1pm and 6pm programmes couldn't be simulcast too!
Another point - I wonder if BBC1 will adopt News 24 style astons from Monday then, considering I assume the 10pm News will be shown on BBC News 24 complete with the full tower.
OB
But why is this a money saving excersise?
By simply having a simulcast for about half an hour?
The N24 set is use nearly all day so you wont save much by not using it for half an hour.
If they really wanted to save money they should have move all of there news output from the N24 studio.
Or not bother with bulletins on BBC One.
I dont see much point of having news on BBC One anymore.
To that end News on any other channel (if it isnt a newschannel) is pointless.
Joanna Gosling Fan posted:
Why don't they just admit what is blindingly obvious: that this is nothing but a money-saving exercise? There is no advantage at all in simulcasting the Ten O'Clock News; they should just admit that what they're doing, rather than pretending it's an improvement.
But why is this a money saving excersise?
By simply having a simulcast for about half an hour?
The N24 set is use nearly all day so you wont save much by not using it for half an hour.
If they really wanted to save money they should have move all of there news output from the N24 studio.
Or not bother with bulletins on BBC One.
I dont see much point of having news on BBC One anymore.
To that end News on any other channel (if it isnt a newschannel) is pointless.
MO
If most people had to actually change channel to watch news they wouldn't bother. Are you really saying you'd be happy with the vast majority of the population being completely ignorant about what's going on in the world - in effect going back to Victorian times?
The general public must be, to a certain extent, force fed news to get them to interact with the governance of the country in which they live.
on the box posted:
I dont see much point of having news on BBC One anymore. To that end News on any other channel (if it isnt a newschannel) is pointless.
If most people had to actually change channel to watch news they wouldn't bother. Are you really saying you'd be happy with the vast majority of the population being completely ignorant about what's going on in the world - in effect going back to Victorian times?
The general public must be, to a certain extent, force fed news to get them to interact with the governance of the country in which they live.
NE
I would envisage Peter Dobbie starting earlier to do the 22:30 onwards - after all, with HardTalk at 23:30 and WBR at 00:30, if he started at 23:00 that's only two full half hours of news, and he currently does 3. If he was on from 22:30 then he'd be working the same amount as he currently is. It would be nice to see more of him (see my comments in the N24 thread a couple of days ago)
If Jane & Chris wrap it up for the night at 22:00, then all of the N24 presenter shifts will be 3 hours long, (with the exception of the 09.00 - 13.00), so it makes things a bit more uniform for the channel's organisation.
Obviously there would be tweaks to the national graphics etc to fit in with the N24 tower and ticker; I would imagine these changes would affect the 1 and 6 too, so they all look the same to the BBC 1 viewers.
If Jane & Chris wrap it up for the night at 22:00, then all of the N24 presenter shifts will be 3 hours long, (with the exception of the 09.00 - 13.00), so it makes things a bit more uniform for the channel's organisation.
Obviously there would be tweaks to the national graphics etc to fit in with the N24 tower and ticker; I would imagine these changes would affect the 1 and 6 too, so they all look the same to the BBC 1 viewers.
R2
I agree with the above comments that Peter Dobbie will no doubt be on from 22.30.
One thing I wonder is whether or not the regional news will last from 22.30-22.45 like the One as opposed to the current 22.25-22.35. It would make more sense, allow some more news on the Ten and also more on the regional news, as well as allowing an easier N24 opt-out.
It seems strange that changes are taking place now with the relaunch not very far off.
One thing I wonder is whether or not the regional news will last from 22.30-22.45 like the One as opposed to the current 22.25-22.35. It would make more sense, allow some more news on the Ten and also more on the regional news, as well as allowing an easier N24 opt-out.
It seems strange that changes are taking place now with the relaunch not very far off.
AN
So no doubt they're gonna tweak the graphics yet again so they look even more of a mish-mash than they do now.
Great.
Great.
OB
If most people had to actually change channel to watch news they wouldn't bother. Are you really saying you'd be happy with the vast majority of the population being completely ignorant about what's going on in the world - in effect going back to Victorian times?
The general public must be, to a certain extent, force fed news to get them to interact with the governance of the country in which they live.
With respect that is not what I am implying, people do want to be in touch with global and domestic events, I belive they should decide when they want to do it, you will find in the not too distant future that the internet will provide the number one source for news and information, if left unregulated it will enable people to interpret events from a variety of
sources without any of the editing and censorship you will find in TV or indeed Newspaper media.
The population wouldnt become more ignorant, I think quite the opposite will happen if people are more open to the idea of seeing a event from many differnt prespectives rather than what ITV,SKY,BBC etc etc views are.
Not wanting to get political, I am a liberal thinker and the notion of force-feeding (the words in themselves are negative) anybody is terrible.
It sounds like a dictatorship, propoganda to make people follow the status-quo, toe- the -line, thankfully it wont happen, but if it ever did people will see it as a form of communisim.
Moz posted:
on the box posted:
I dont see much point of having news on BBC One anymore. To that end News on any other channel (if it isnt a newschannel) is pointless.
If most people had to actually change channel to watch news they wouldn't bother. Are you really saying you'd be happy with the vast majority of the population being completely ignorant about what's going on in the world - in effect going back to Victorian times?
The general public must be, to a certain extent, force fed news to get them to interact with the governance of the country in which they live.
With respect that is not what I am implying, people do want to be in touch with global and domestic events, I belive they should decide when they want to do it, you will find in the not too distant future that the internet will provide the number one source for news and information, if left unregulated it will enable people to interpret events from a variety of
sources without any of the editing and censorship you will find in TV or indeed Newspaper media.
The population wouldnt become more ignorant, I think quite the opposite will happen if people are more open to the idea of seeing a event from many differnt prespectives rather than what ITV,SKY,BBC etc etc views are.
Not wanting to get political, I am a liberal thinker and the notion of force-feeding (the words in themselves are negative) anybody is terrible.
It sounds like a dictatorship, propoganda to make people follow the status-quo, toe- the -line, thankfully it wont happen, but if it ever did people will see it as a form of communisim.
DV
Dislike this move greatly - I want rolling news not Bulletins. I also presume that WBR is being scrapped on N24 for this too.
Grrrh
Grrrh